Cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

AIM: To systematically identify and appraise the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of metabolic surgery for the treatment of comorbid type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases and grey literature sources up to 20 January 2021. Economic evaluations in a T2D population or a subpopulation with T2D were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, critical appraisal of methodological quality (Consensus Health Economic Criteria list) and assessment of transferability (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research questionnaire) were undertaken in duplicate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome. Costs were reported in 2020 Irish Euro. Cost-effectiveness was interpreted using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €20,000 and €45,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Due to heterogeneity arising from various sources, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty studies across seventeen jurisdictions met the inclusion criteria; 16 specifically in a T2D population and 14 in a subpopulation with T2D. Overall, metabolic surgery was found to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Where undertaken, the results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. Of the 30 studies included, 15 were considered high quality. Identified limitations included limited long-term follow-up data and uncertainty regarding the utility associated with T2D remission. CONCLUSION: Published high-quality studies suggest metabolic surgery is a cost-effective or cost-saving intervention. As the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases increases worldwide, significant investment and careful consideration of the resource requirements needed for metabolic surgery programmes will be necessary to ensure that service provision is adequate to meet demand.

Another Step Toward Hepatitis C Elimination: An Economic Evaluation of an Irish National Birth Cohort Testing Program.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of offering once-off birth cohort testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) to people in Ireland born between 1965 and 1985, the cohort with the highest reported prevalence of undiagnosed chronic HCV infection. METHODS: Systematic and opportunistic HCV birth cohort testing programs, implemented over a 4-year timeframe, were compared with the current practice of population risk-based testing only in a closed-cohort decision tree and Markov model hybrid over a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented from the health system's perspective in 2020 euro (€). Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic, probabilistic, scenario, and threshold analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, systematic testing yielded the largest cost and health benefits, followed by opportunistic testing and risk-based testing. Compared with risk-based testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for opportunistic testing was €14 586 (95% confidence interval €4185-€33 527) per QALY gained. Compared with opportunistic testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for systematic testing was €16 827 (95% confidence interval €5106-€38 843) per QALY gained. These findings were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both systematic and opportunistic birth cohort testing would be considered an efficient use of resources, but systematic testing was the optimal strategy at willingness-to-pay threshold values typically used in Ireland. Although cost-effective, any decision to introduce birth cohort testing for HCV (in Ireland or elsewhere) must be balanced with considerations regarding the feasibility and budget impact of implementing a national testing program given high initial costs and resource use.

Population-Based Testing for Undiagnosed Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recognising the significant public health threat posed by hepatitis C, international targets have been established by the World Health Organization with the aim of eradicating the hepatitis C virus (HCV) by 2030. With the availability of safe and effective therapies, the greatest challenge to achieving elimination is the identification and treatment of those currently undiagnosed. This systematic review aimed to identify and appraise the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of birth cohort, universal, and age-based general population testing for identifying people with undiagnosed chronic HCV infection. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in Medline, Embase and grey literature sources to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 17 July 2020. Retrieved citations were independently reviewed by two reviewers according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction and critical appraisal were completed in duplicate. Study quality, relevance and credibility were assessed using the Consensus for Health Economic Criteria and the ISPOR questionnaires. All costs were reported in 2019 Irish Euro following adjustment for inflation and purchasing power parity. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €20,000 and €45,000 were adopted as reference points for interpreting cost-effectiveness in the narrative synthesis. The systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. RESULTS: Overall, 4622 citations were retrieved in the literature search. Of these, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six (22%) of the 27 studies were rated as low quality, 17 (63%) were moderate quality and four (15%) were high quality. Compared with no testing or risk-based testing: 14 of 16 (88%) cost-utility analyses found that birth cohort testing was cost effective, eight of nine (89%) analyses found that universal testing was cost effective, and eight of eight (100%) analyses found that age-based general population testing was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was influenced by disease prevalence and progression, testing and treatment uptake, treatment eligibility of those identified by testing, the cost of treatment and the proportion of those treated that achieve sustained virological response. CONCLUSION: Overall, the international evidence supports the potential cost effectiveness of birth cohort, universal, and age-based general population testing, but is caveated by study generalisability, specifically the transferability of findings from one jurisdiction to another, and institutional variations in healthcare delivery systems and budgetary constraints. The cost effectiveness of each approach will vary according to population- and health system-specific characteristics such as epidemiological context, testing coverage, linkage to care and capacity to treat. Given issues regarding the transferability of economic evaluations (for example, model inputs and assumptions) and the significant resources required to implement these interventions, jurisdiction-specific economic evaluations and budget impact analyses will likely be required to inform investment and implementation decisions. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019127159. Registered 29 April 2019.